Posts Tagged ‘David Hencke’

While Huhne fiddles Britain burns: David Hencke sets media priorities in perspective

March 14th, 2013
His blog mentions – amongst other coverage – the Guardian and Channel Four “mea culpa” interviews with Chris Huhne – one given according to the Standard to the journalist best man at his wedding, adding:

“What next? The creation of a Huhne concerto by piano playing Guardian editor Alan Rusbridger to commemorate the event or an Anna Wintour fashion show to raise cash for Vicky Pryce’s convalescence . . .”.

“No matter. My main point is that this is a distraction.

“While all this goes on thousands of people are being forced to move house because of cruel government policies, there is an epidemic of unsolved child abuse cases and the NHS appears to have let patients die unnecessarily on an epic scale.

“Literally While Huhne fiddles Britain burns”.

 

VERY bad decisions by government – 29: privatising the work of the Audit Commission

January 21st, 2013
eric pickles23jpgBefore referring to the decision of Communities Secretary, Eric Pickles to scrap the Audit Commission, protector of the ‘public purse’ which pays for local government, health, housing, police, fire and rescue and other public services, David Hencke questions the wisdom of doing this.

Will its work be done more effectively by private companies which are part of that corporate-political nexus (‘cosy relationships’) deplored by the Vested Interest in Politics people and the public in general?

Hencke says:

david hencke2“Basically Pickles wants to leave it to local councils, health trusts and the new NHS commissioning bodies to police themselves by appointing their own auditors, taking away a whistleblower hot line to the Audit Commission, and allowing big accountancy firms free rein to up their charges by picking off individual councils. It also allows even more cosy relationships to be built between the auditor and the local council and leaves whistleblowers nowhere to go”.

The Commission has already had to start outsourcing

In March last year it awarded the following contracts to:

  • Grant Thornton (UK) LLP, a total notional value of £41.3 million a year covering four contract areas in the North West, West Midlands, London (South) Surrey & Kent, and South West;
  • KPMG LLP a total notional value of £23.1 million a year covering three contract areas in Humberside & Yorkshire, East Midlands, and London (North);
  • Ernst & Young LLP a total notional value of £20 million a year covering two contract areas in Eastern and South East; and
  • DA Partnership Ltd a total notional value of £5 million a year covering one contract area in the North East & North Yorkshire.
The Commons Public Accounts Committee has come to some damning conclusions on what the government is about to do – see Hansard. Points include:
  • The government claims it will save £137m a year but the MPs say the figure is more likely to be £2.4m.
  • The audit regime will be fragmented and more complex.
  • The proposals for self-appointment of local auditors risk compromising the independence of audit.
  • There are risks of duplicating governance structures, losing economies of scale in audit fees, diminished quality of audit and increased tendering costs
It also stresses that there must be provision to enable auditor removal, whistleblowing and public interest reporting.

There is a full report by Hencke on the Exaro News website.

 

What is the true intention of some states and 700 private company members of the ITU?

December 12th, 2012
Is the UN’s ITU agency ‘striving to improve’ or to ‘restrict’, ‘regulate’ and ‘monetise’ access to information and communication technologies – ICTs – at the UN-convened World Conference on International Telecommunications in Dubai?

ITU logoITU cover-brochureThe ITU states that it is committed to connecting all the world’s people – wherever they live and whatever their means, to protect and support everyone’s fundamental right to communicate. It is the only UN agency to have both public and private sector membership, including the 193 Member States, ICT regulators, leading academic institutions and some 700 private companies.

Three alarming sets of allegations:

John C Abell, the New York Bureau chief of London-based Wired, which covers innovation in science, culture and business writes in his Reuters blog:

  • “The ITU is weighing proposals from many of its 193 member nations. Some of these proposals ‑ such as decentralizing the assignment of website names and eliminating Internet anonymity ‑ would make enormous changes to the organization and management of the Internet  . . .

David Hencke warned last month that world’s most repressive regimes, named as including China, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Syria – and sadly after the Arab spring, Egypt  – want to ‘hi-jack’ the ITU for their own ends.

He added that they are canvassing over 80 other developing countries, including African and Asian dictatorships, to back a new UN Treaty which would legitimise the right of governments to limit who can access the internet and to support the introduction of a” Sender Pays” model, which would charge a person if his/her e-mail was read by anybody in another country.

The other hi-jacking attempt could be from “a group of unnamed European telecommunications companies who want to profit from this by introducing charges for using the net, including sending e-mails and talking on Skype – being well aware that the decline in post and international calls means the end of an income stream”.

Going to Work, a project of the TUC, makes similar points on its website. It adds that:

“So far the proposal has flown under the radar, thanks to the secretive nature of the ITU, but its implications are so serious that we must act quickly to show the ITU and its member countries that citizens will not stand by while our right to communicate freely is undermined”.

“The proposal would give governments and companies all over the world the ability to:

  • Restrict access to the internet to approved uses
  • Monitor everything done online
  • Change the way we pay for the internet, potentially marginalising civil society and developing countries.

Going to Work concludes:

“An internet totally controlled by government and big business contradicts the very essence of what the internet represents – open and free access for all. The new rules would affect us all, but would hurt people in poorer countries and those living in dictatorships even more.

“Add your name to the global petition we’re running in conjunction with the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC), and ask our government representatives who will attend this conference to reject these changes that will seriously and permanently restrict internet freedoms”.

 

Campaign: remove covert corporate influence from political life – 2: David Hencke

October 30th, 2012

David Hencke spent time in the Parliamentary lobby as Westminster Correspondent covering Whitehall & Westminster, winning three awards for investigations – the most serious being the ”cash for questions” scandal which led to the bankruptcy of Ian Greer Associates, one of the country’s biggest lobbying companies and the resignations of two junior ministers, Neil Hamilton and Tim Smith, who have since left politics.

Now freelance, he has remained in Parliament as Westminster Correspondent for Tribune, writing for the Sunday Telegraph, Mail on Sunday, Guardian, Independent, IPPR Journal, The Journalist, British Journalism Review, the Guardian’s Comment is Free, politics.co.uk, new Fleet Street based ExaroNews, and has written a blog, Tory tracker, for Progress.

David Hencke took part in the Fox investigative team for The Friend, a Quaker publication and worked as head of current affairs for for Raw Cut TV and has his own TV company, Brown Envelope TV registered in Edgbaston, Birmingham. He is working freelance to contribute to the Fire Brigades Union campaign to stop privatisation of emergency services and investigating the companies and people behind the privatisation and doing some research for the Unite union on cuts.

Update:

See his recent post on the conduct of London’s former fire chair and Barnet councillor, Brian Coleman and the abolition – in the name of  localism – of the Local Government Standards board which set standards for England. Now, even if Mr Coleman is convicted, he could stay in office -  provided he doesn’t spend three months or more in prison. Mr Hencke comments:

“Frankly this is both damaging to the standards required in local government and to the Conservative Party in particular. It gives the impression that there is one law for Tories, and another for the rest of the public. It chimes well with the recent behaviour of Andrew Mitchell, the former chief whip, who swore at the police, and sits very badly with David Cameron’s initiative on Monday for tough intelligent justice”.

Another item which would be of particular interest to PCU readers is the Silence of the Whistleblowers.

Hencke rightly wrote that confidential evidence on fraud within the Labour and Conservative governments’ Welfare to Work scheme, given by a team of whistleblowers to Parliament’s most powerful committee of MPs, should have become public. It led to a damning report  by MPs on the Department of Work and Pensions’ stewardship of  taxpayers’ money handed over to profit-making companies such as A4e.

Margaret Hodge, the Labour MP who chairs the committee, said: “The DWP’s arrangements for overseeing and inspecting its contractors were so weak that vital evidence on potential fraud and improper practice was not picked up.” Richard Bacon, Conservative MP and deputy chairman of the committee, said: “Encouraging innovation and fresh approaches is important, but so is ensuring value for taxpayers. Providers cannot be allowed to run wild and free with public money.”

Eddie Hutchinson, former chief auditor of A4e, told the committee in his submission of “systemic” fraud and malpractice at the company. Hutchinson, worked at A4e from October 2010 until May last year, and at Working Links before that. He described what he saw at both companies as “a multi-billion-pound scandal”.  However the final report was censored. Hencke asks:

  • Have the whistleblowers been threatened?
  • Did they decide they had lied to the committee?
  • Or is there a blacklist in the auditing profession to prevent people who blow the whistle from getting fresh work?
His conclusion

(It is) a bad day for transparency and democracy when the most powerful committee in Parliament that holds the government to account cannot publish the facts. The government is making matters worse by changing the law protecting whistleblowers to make it even more unlikely they will risk their careers at the moment.